Pana v. Bowler
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. This was an action of assumpsit brought by James H. Bowler and Isaac H. Merrill against the town of Pana, Illinois, upon coupons cut from certain bonds issued by the town, dated June 23, 1873. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the parties having waived a jury, submitted the case to the court upon the facts’as well as the law. 'The court found the issues of fact for the…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. This was an action of assumpsit brought by James H. Bowler and Isaac H. Merrill against the town of Pana, Illinois, upon coupons cut from certain bonds issued by the town, dated June 23, 1873. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the parties having waived a jury, submitted the case to the court upon the facts’as well as the law. 'The court found the issues of fact for the plaintiffs, and rendered judgment in their favor for $7,272.02. This writ' of error is. brought by the defendant to review that…
1Opinion of the Court
Mb,. Justice Woods
delivered the opinion of the court, and, after making the foregoing statement, proceeded as follows : —
The people of the township of Pana voted almost unanimously for the donation to pay which the bonds in this case were issued. There is no pretence of any fraud in their issue. It is not disputed that the railroad company complied on its part with all the conditions upon' which they were to be issued, or that the township has received all for which it bargained in consideration of, the issue of them. They were registered in the office of thfe auditor of public accounts,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Cooper v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- United States v. TynenSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Gelpcke v. DubuqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by86 opinions
- Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. BigelowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Dixon County v. FieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Clark v. BeverSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Presidio County v. Noel-Young Bond & Stock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.